Letters to the Editor Saturday

I read the Jan. 29 letter from Lt. Col. Rideout, who equates women in combat as a “degradation to a unit’s integrity and capability” since women will have sex with some men and not others, making them jealous.

Oh, please. That happens everyday in real life.

I am a woman who has shot a gun since I was 5. I am an excellent shot.

Were I in my 20s and in the military, I would have no qualms about putting a bullet in some guy with a turban wrapped around his head and whose society discriminates against women.

Oh, and when I left, I would not leave hundreds of thousands of American babies behind, since as a man I had sex with the women of that country and deserted them.

Talk about integrity?

As my momma would say, “Man, please, you are so sickening.”

SANDRA BRADY MORRIS

Pooler

Paula Deen pushed ‘food porn’ before she found moderation

In her letter (“Paula Deen put us on the ‘foodie’ map,” Jan. 30,) Janice Shay defends Ms. Deen against what she perceives as “vitriol” and unfair criticism.

What I have yet to see in the recent discussions about Ms. Deen is a separation of her persona from her role as a celebrity cook.

I am certain that Ms. Deen, the person, is as kind and genuine as Ms. Shay says she is. I also point to Paula Deen as a wonderful example of the American dream realized and the power of a single mother who has vision and courage.

In that, I am among her biggest fans.

However, while I have not seen the vitriol to which Ms. Shay refers, I am aware of the frustration felt by many local health professionals regarding Ms. Deen in her role as celebrity cook.

Ms. Deen, the cook, prior to her new-found practice of moderation, glorified and promoted foods high in saturated fat (such as her fried macaroni and cheese, better classified as “food porn” than “food”) in the face of soaring obesity rates, and that she continually defended her high-sugar recipes with statements like, “I’m your cook, not your doctor,” failing to see the relationship between the two in the face of an epidemic of childhood diabetes is generally not appreciated by me or any colleague in the health professions I have encountered.

I wish her transformation had occurred earlier.

ROBERT LEFAVI, Ph.D.

Professor of Health Sciences

Armstrong Atlantic State University

Savannah

Hitler said it best about gun registration — back in 1935

I would like to respond to Tom Fischer’s Jan. 23 letter regarding full gun registration. History shows that it just doesn’t work.

He also wants to eliminate the sale of guns to felons, mentally disturbed and “other high risk individuals.”

Define “high risk individuals.” I wonder what broad brush the government would use to paint those “other individuals.” A slippery slope indeed.

We have as Americans a right to keep and bear firearms. There is not requirement to register or report to the government that we even have them in our house. And so it should be.

To make my point, I quote a 20th century tyrant: “This year will go down in history. For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future.”

Adolf Hitler said this in 1935.

We all know how that turned out.

MICHAEL KINNISON

Rincon

‘Legitimate restrictions’ on guns will help keep Americans safe

As vulnerable humans, we are all subject to an eventual earthly death.

As dismaying as it might be, we naturally expect and anticipate the deaths of grandparents, parents and possibly a spouse.

However, it goes against nature and expectations when we have to endure the death of a child or grandchild, whether through disease, illness or an unforeseen accident or act of nature.

It is most disheartening and disconcerting when any of us have to experience the death of a loved one from gun violence.

It is far more dismaying that the right wing and tea party elements of our society continue to oppose reasonable and legitimate restrictions on assault weapons and multiple/extended magazines, which were designed exclusively for military purposes and battleground scenarios.

ED FAHEY

Springfield

‘Hillary for President’ campaign has begun, thanks to media

The drumbeat to elect Hillary Clinton our first female president by the media and news folks has begun.

Their plan is to use the same strategy employed to shove Barack Obama down our throats, create myths and ignore facts.

In Hillary’s case, claim she is America’s greatest secretary of state and pass over her lack of accomplishments, cite her exhaustive travels and ignore the failure of the Russian Reset Button, the decline of our influence in the Middle East, the rebirth of al-Qaida in Africa, the challenges from North Korea and her recent behavior and obfuscation before various congressional committees.

Perhaps one should not attack Ms. Clinton for executing President ‘Withdrawal’s’ flawed and naive foreign policies, but certainly one can berate her for defending them with lies and denial.

Yes, I believe a village of emotional women, with help from the press and media dolts, will elevate her into the Oval Office. The possibility grows that we will have another four to eight wasted and contentious years.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

In addition to Dr. Lefavi's well-worded dissenting opinion on Paula Deen, it should be pointed out that one of the primary reasons why the Deen clan dropped so much weight is because they stopped eating in their own restaurant. The Lady & Sons truly missed a prime opportunity to lead the way toward a healthier lifestyle by changing their menu and evolving as a restaurant. Instead, they've dug in their heels and continue to slop the trough, all the while opting for fruits and veggies at home; can you say hypocrisy? By day, Bobby Deen continues to operate The Lady & Sons and by night he flips the script and foists off recipes that are "not my mother's". And I don't think I've seen anyone play both sides of a street like that, with the possible exception of a schizophrenic.

Why is the death of a child from gun violence any more disheartening and disconcerting than death from drunk driving? Or any other method, for that matter? Why focus on the one cause of death that is responsible for much fewer deaths than alcohol, handguns and many other causes?

It just seems disingenuous to me that we would proclaim to be concerned about the death of children and attack one class of tool (semi automatic rifles) used to kill, yet we ignore the other causes which are responsible for the vast majority of deaths. It is far more dismaying to me that people oppose these weapons of war in the hands of law abiding civilians, yet have no problem with law enforcement and other government agencies carrying them. Why can't we admit that it isn't the weapon we don't trust, but the person? Because if we did, then we'd also have to admit that the solution also resides with the person, not the weapon.

Some argue that we don't need semi automatic rifles and high capacity magazines at all, except for the police, and the soldiers we send to foreign countries to patrol their streets. Well, we don't need things like alcohol, violent movies and video games, etc, but we still demand those in our free society. What we need is a society that demands enforcement of existing laws, and a society less squeamish when it comes to eliminating the violent offender.

Let me get this straight. Paula Deen's former mild mannered endorsement of delicious but decadent foods is single-handedly responsible for the epidemic of childhood obesity and Type 2 diabetes. Lack of common sense and moderation/self-control on the part of the eater has absolutely nothing to do with it.

So, why is it that the force-feeding of sex, violence and political correctness by Hollywood (which permeates our social awareness much more than little old Paula in her very limited venue) is to be held harmless for the rise in violence, broken families and economic decline? Perhaps, I'm just too slow to comprehend the difference.

Hey, I'll jump on board and pillory The Lady... right after Quentin Tarantino and his buddies in Hollywood get whats coming to them. It seems Miss Paula has already been shamed into changing her ways, but it would also seem that there is no shame or sense of civic responsibility in Tinseltown that would produce a similar outcome.

Hollywood, indeed, is being called on the red carpet to amend its violent and prurient ways: Sean Penn's latest movie, Gangster Squad, had to be pulled from release in order to edit out a scene in which gangsters shot up an audience in a movie theatre and Tarantino's latest, Django, has been inundated with demands that gratuitous violence and derogatory words be abandoned. Even the porno industry has been forced to pass a new regulation requiring actors to use condoms, in reaction to the rise of std's in America. So you're dead wrong on this one, Max.

However, this is still America, and we are still free to express ourselves on screen and on stove. Paula and Quentin are still free to ply their trades and display their wares to those unwitting enough to resist them. They have their fans and their detractors and they will continue to make money and win awards at the same time that they are criticized; you can't please everybody. But this fairness doctrine of yours which demands that the captain of one industry be subjected to the same treatment as another-- while plausible in a dinner conversation kind of way-- can only lead to changing Wall Street, Main Street and every other street of commerce in addition to Tinseltown and Fat City. If we gotta start somewhere, I say we start at home: eat healthy, be selective in your entertainment and allow others to live and let live.

It is hardly MINE, nor do I even necessarily believe in it. I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of those who cherry-pick their demons, often demanding the heads of rather benign but politically incorrect transgressors, while giving a pass to much more malicious behavior. Don't even get me started on the propaganda pieces like Promised Land.

As for demands that Hollywood clean up its act, I would merely point out that Miss Paula has affected a relatively dramatic change, while that of Hollywood is superficial, at best. Django and Gangster Squad are still far more violent and graphic than anything I can recall sneaking in to see as an underage teenager. I am not endorsing censorship; I vote with my pocketbook, just like those who disagree with the fare of Lady and Sons can choose to eat at some overpriced bistro serving braised tofu on organic arugala with a side of quinoa and wild rice pilaf. But that doesn't mean I can't speak out against other excesses of our permissive society.

I am merely disheartened that some parents feel they need to deny their kids (and everyone else's) an occasional french fry or Twinkie, while seemingly unconcerned about the other noxious exposures in their lives. Did Michelle O really need to chastise Gabby Douglas in public for eating an Egg McMuffin (which, BTW, is one of the healthier breakfast offerings at Mickey D's) after winning olympic gold?

Max, dear, you speak of hypocrisy and there's no better place to start than the Deens. Consider that they've been larding the larder since day one and when the Lady herself suffered the consequences she sold out to a drug company instead of retooling her menu, continuing to feed others what she and her family will no longer eat. As if that wasn't enough, her son cops yet another tv show in which he dismantles the same recipes his family serves at the restaurant and shows you how to go about finding healthier alternatives. Not only does it fail the common sense test, it fails the smell test. I don't think I've ever seen any business pull off this kind of duplicity by creating a consumable and its antidote AND touting the drug to deal with the complications. At the very least it's in poor taste-- in every sense of the phrase-- and at the worst it is shameless in its hucksterism.

As for Hollywood, I happen to agree with you. I will even go you one further: I killed my television years ago. I will not have that noise in my house and I cannot tell you how much it has improved the everyday quality of life.

If Sandra Morris is such a good shot, I guess that makes her automatically qualified to be a soldier. Personally, I would prefer weapons be kept out of her hands. She sounds a little too militant to me.

Sure, I'm all for Paula recommending moderation but she still serves up an all-you-can eat buffet of that which she acknowledges isn't good for you in the first place. Makes about as much sense as putting a warning about cancer on packs of cigarettes: smoke 'em if ya want, but they're likely to kill ya. I am addressing Consistency here, not free will, free choice or free lunch. In my comments here I at least try to be clear and concise. Sit down with a Lady & Sons menu, their cookbook, and watch her show, then try to square it with her private diet, her sons' cookbook and Bobby's show, and tell me if the Lady ain't the Mother of Mixed Messages.

Holding Paula responsible for people overeating at a buffett makes about as much sense as holding liquor manufacturers responsible when someone drinks to excess, or gun manufacturers when they are misused, or auto manufacturers when someone speeds. It's all about personal responsibility or rather the lack of it. Moderation is the answer but most people have forgotten the question.

Dick, could you give me a few names in the Grand Old Party that are as qualified or that could beat Hillary in 2016? I see the GOP is softening its’ stand on immigration. Not because they think it’s the morally right thing to do, but because they want the ‘illegal immigrants’ vote (sorry make that undocumented workers’ vote). Then if they will stop calling seniors on Social Security takers and not makers (they like those catchy phrases) and stop saying stupid things about a woman’s reproductive rights. Then maybe, just maybe they might have a chance against Hillary if the immigrants, seniors and women buy that they have completely abandoned their 2004 convention platform. Isn’t it nice to have flexible morals?

May be a lot of things, but a "[filtered word]" is not one of them. He is an American hero and a POW for 6 years in North Vietnam. He has served the state of Arizona in the House and Senate since 1982. While you may not agree with all of his political views, calling him a "[filtered word]" says more about you than it does about John McCain.

No one said John McCain was right about everything. Last time I checked, there has only been one human that met that criteria. All humans are right about some things, wrong about others. You, me, John McCain all belong in that category. There is not one single politician in this country who is right about everything regardless of their political persuasion.

@yulb the tactic of calling people names when you do not agree with them diminishes you and any legitimate argument or position you might be presenting.

Yes we have a huge budget deficit growing by the day. Broke, as you call it. While an isolationist foreign policy is tempting when trying to balance the budget, it is more complicated than "not sticking our nose in anyone's business". Those who we don't support, will be supported by others who are interested in taking over the position of #1 Superpower. It is not in our best interest as a country to allow that to happen. If we were Canada or Switzerland, an isolationist foreign policy might be safe. But we are not. We are the #1 Superpower in the world and there are countries and political ideologies in the world that would like to take that designation away from us. The consequences of losing the "balance of power" battle are ones I would rather not risk for myself, my children or grandchildren.

Sometimes the balance of power can be addressed with monetary support of certain groups. other times it can be logistical support, or drones, or bombs. Sometimes it takes "boots", as you put it.

The number one responsibility of the federal government is to protect it's citizens from foreign powers who would like to disrupt our way of life in any way, shape or form. I think even our current president has been surprised as he has been educated on the incredibly complex world wide structure which it takes to meet that responsibility to the citizens of the United States.

Just because a politician takes this responsibility seriously and has real world experience regarding why vigilance continues to be necessary, does not make them a "war monger" as you like to call them.

Is an angry old white man, who has more than been paid back for his POW days by ripping off the people since 1982. I get so sick of hearing about his sacrifice for our Country. Many have made far more a sacrifice than John McCain, unfortunately they did not live to speak about it, and many who have lived do not use it as a tool for self promotion. I believe that calling him a "[filtered word]" is being very far more conservative that what he deserves.

You like taking those hate pills everyday...taking aim at the
Dems...it shows in all of your posts. You just spew the hatred with no facts to back up what you say. I don't' see any GOPs looming that can match Hillary...I doubt that you can too.

Clearly you know not of what you speak. There is NO WAY to pay back an American soldier for spending 6 years as a POW. The damage that is done to a person enduring POW treatment never goes away. It is not only damage to the person themselves but to all of the relationships in their lives. Even those who were not POWs in Vietnam, but served there, were changed in ways most cannot imagine. Most never speak about it, even when asked. If you have never been asked to serve your country in such a manner as a soldier or military family member, you do not have standing to speak about it one way or the other.

Do you really need a link to the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi? Let me guess. You don't consider that little incident a part of the Lybian conflict? Or did you just forget about that already?

So everything that happens in Libya from now on is Obama’s fault because we helped them get rid of Omar Kaddafi. Boy with that kind of thinking, you and the TP boys in Washington would have had a field day if ya’ll had been around when General Patton was killed after WWII.

I never mentioned Gaddafi (and it's Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi, or simply Muammar Gaddafi) or tried to blame Obama for anything. I only responded to Yulb's comment by pointing out that four Americans died in Libya amid all of the turmoil that still engulfs that nation.

It does seem to me that you harbor issues with me, Obama and the Tea Party that have little to do with my initial comment. All I did was state a fact that Americans died in Libya and you go off on a tangent. You jump to the defense of Obama where no criticsm was mentioned. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."